DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 09, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed December 09, 2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 6 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
As explained in the Non-Obvious Subject Matter section below, the previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed December 09, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
In the Action, the Office alleges that the claims recite an abstract idea as allegedly falling under the groupings of "mathematical concepts" and "certain methods of organizing human activity" and, more specifically, under the sub-grouping of "commercial or legal interactions (including business relations)." See Office Action at 7. The Applicant disagrees.
As the MPEP indicates, the "mathematical concepts grouping" is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The MPEP states that "[a] claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept." Even assuming that the claims do indeed involve a mathematical concept (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While examiner maintains calculating scores, which is a mathematical calculation, Examiner recognizes the claims primarily recite a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting structuring relations between a delivery requester and a plurality of deliverers. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for using a plurality of deliverers for a single delivery request by sectioning a delivery route. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
These limitations integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The claims require that each of the sender information, the package information, the deliverer information, and the sectional route information databases store only word-level information as string fields. This specific and constrained data structure is distinct from ordinary structured tables or time-series/feature-vector data assumed in conventional logistics systems. This provides an improvement on how the computer stores and accesses the data for processing. Further, the processing of this word-level data in string fields is processed in a particular operation for deliverer selection. Specifically, the operation requires a semantic analysis of the word information without morphological or syntactic analysis, conversion of the word information into codes, application of weights to the codes to compute scores, and selection of deliverers based on the scores together with thresholds, priority information, and deliverer attributes. The claims further provide a practical application in the process of generating sectional routes. Thus, this is a practical application that further provides a technical benefit.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recital of word information is merely reciting a type of data which is a form of insignificant extrasolution activity and does not change how the computer stores and accesses data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The instant claims recital of semantic analysis is merely the use of a tool for assigning codes to words. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). The claimed semantic analysis has not been improved by defining the input as word information and the output as a code. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.").
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that combining the elements of the receiver, the storage unit, the transmitter, and the processor including the sectional route generator, the sectional route selector, and the deliverer selector of the present claims as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of optimizing delivery of a package and certainly goes beyond merely applying the abstract idea with a generic computer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in the rejection below, the identified additional elements are generic computer components. Further, Applicant’s amount to a general allegation that the claims define eligible subject matter without specifically pointing out how the claimed additional elements amount to a practical application.
The Bascom decision was directed toward filtering internet content. The court in Bascom found that the claims amounted to significantly more than the identified abstract idea of filtering internet content because the claims recited an inventive concept that improved filtering on the internet over the prior art. The identified improvement was determined to be a computer-based improvement to a computer based problem rather than merely reciting filtering content with a requirement to perform it on the internet or perform it using generic computer components. In making this determination the court relied on the specification of the patent at issue in Bascom to determine that the claims overcame four specific problems including the problem that current filtering software was vulnerable to a computer literate end user. In the instant case, the claims to not offer an improvement in computer technology similar to the claims found eligible in Bascom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 10 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 11 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 11, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of receiving a delivery request, sectioning the request, and assigning a plurality of deliverers to the sections of the delivery request, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting structuring relations between a delivery requester and a plurality of deliverers. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for using a plurality of deliverers for a single delivery request by sectioning a delivery route. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The method of organizing human activity and mathematical concept of “receiving a delivery request, sectioning the request, and assigning a plurality of deliverers to the sections of the delivery request,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving package information, receiving priority information, receiving deliverer information, generating sectional routes, setting a threshold, sectioning based on the threshold, combining sectional routes, selecting a deliverer for each sectional route, converting word information into codes, applying weights to codes to calculate scores, selecting a deliverer using calculated scores, transmitting delivery charge information, receiving a change request, generating updated sectional routes, combining updated sectional routes, and selectin a second deliverer. The mere nominal recitation of a receiver, a storage unit, storing word information, natural language processing, executing semantic analysis without performing morphological analysis or syntactic analysis, a transmitter, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: generating delivery charge information, selecting deliverer based on cost, setting sectional route thresholds, acquiring approval for delivery assignments, transmitting delivery instructions, requesting delivery from each deliverer, selecting deliverers with high evaluation values, and receiving sectional route changes.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite the additional elements: a receiver, a storage unit, storing word information, natural language processing, executing semantic analysis without performing morphological analysis or syntactic analysis, a transmitter, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. These receiver, storage unit, natural language processing, executing semantic analysis without performing morphological analysis or syntactic analysis, transmitter, computer, and non-transitory computer readable medium limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The storing word information is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of using individual delivers as a supply chain in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing shipment routing process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a receiver, a storage unit, a transmitter, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), storing and retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies), and presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a receiver (Specification [0040]), a storage unit (Specification [0039], [0040], [0045]), natural language processing (Specification [0054]), executing semantic analysis without performing morphological analysis or syntactic analysis (Specification [0055]), a transmitter (Specification [0040]), a computer (Specification [0037], [0117]), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Specification [0117]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a receiver, a storage unit, natural language processing, executing semantic analysis without performing morphological analysis or syntactic analysis, a transmitter, a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) by reciting storing word information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting the delivery field. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art already made of record is Berdinis et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2018/0211218 A1), Bateman (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0154347 A1), and Scalabrino (U.S. 11,853,957 B1). Additionally, Kuboyama (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2010/0114856 A1) and Polanyi et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2009/0077069 A1) are made of record.
Kuboyama discloses performing semantic analysis without using morphological analysis (Kuboyama [0077]).
Polanyi discloses performing semantic analysis without also performing syntactic analysis (Polyanyi [0029]).
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the closest prior art of record to disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed combination of limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuboyama (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2010/0114856 A1)
Polanyi et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2009/0077069 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628